JUDGMENT K.L. MANJUNATH, J.-The State has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 23.4.2007 passed in S.C. No. 380/2006 by the Fast Track Court (Sessions Judge) - V, Bangalore City, acquitting the respondents/ accused of the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506 and 307 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, 1961. 2. Criminal Revision Petition 823/2007 has been preferred by PW.6-Bhavani, wife of the first respondent challenging the very judgment and order of acquittal. Therefore, these two matters are heard together and disposed off by this common judgment. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that PW.6-Bhavani lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.7 on 2.1.2004 at about 4.00 p.m. before PW.13- PI on the basis of which, case in Crime No. 1/2004 came to be registered and FIR was sent as per Ex.P.11 to Jurisdictional Magistrate, which reached on 3.4.2004 at about 11 a.m. As per the complaint of PW.6 Bhavani, her marriage was solemnized with A.1 on 1.2.1999 at Ganapathi Kalyana Mantapa, Kengeri Town and prior to the marriage, marriage negotiation was held in her house to which, all the accused persons attended and at that time, they demanded cash of Rs. 1 lakh, 100 grams of gold jewels, Rs. 25,000/- for bridegroom clothes and that the marriage should be solemnized in a Kalyana Mantapa. After deliberations, it was settled for Rs. 1 lakh cash, 80 grams of gold jewels, Rs. 25,000/- towards the clothes for bridegroom. Since PW.9 Krishnappa-father of the complainant was unable to solemnize the marriage at Kalyana Mantapa, it was agreed that the marriage shall be celebrated in a temple and lunch shall be in front of her house. Accordingly, the marriage was solemnized on 1.2.1999. A week prior to her marriage one lakh was paid to A.1, 32 grams of mangalya chain, 32 grams of gold bangles, 2 gold rings and earnings were given to her and one gold chain and ring was also given to A. 1 in addition to Rs. 25,000/- paid in cash. After the marriage, the lunch was arranged in front of her parents house by spending Rs. 30,000/-. 4. It is also the case of the prosecution that all these accused were residing together at Dubasipalya village and she was also residing with them. After some time, her husband demanded further sum of Rs. 25,000/- paid in cash. After the marriage, the lunch was arranged in front of her parents house by spending Rs. 30,000/-. 4. It is also the case of the prosecution that all these accused were residing together at Dubasipalya village and she was also residing with them. After some time, her husband demanded further sum of Rs. 1 lakh in order to get two sites for him. Since she refused to meet the request of respondent No. 1, all the accused started ill-treating her both physically and mentally. A.1 being BTS driver, was addicted to alcohol and therefore, he was forcing her to bring dowry from her parents and other accused were supporting accused No. 1. Thereafter, in September 2000, he demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. Ultimately, it was settled for Rs. 25,000/- and the same was paid by her father to accused No. 1. It is also her case that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid by her parents with a request that he will not ill-treat the complainant. It is further the case of the complainant that on 1.1.2004 at about 11 p.m. in the night A.1 came to the house by consuming liquor and started assaulting her and when she cried for help, remaining accused also threatened to kill her and also started assaulting her all over the body and they also instigated A.1 to pour kerosene on her and set her ablaze and ultimately, all the accused by threatening her to bring dowry of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and to get two sites, confined her in the house and left the house. Next day morning at 6 a.m., when the accused returned to the house, she escaped from the house of the accused and went to her sister's house-PW.7 and with her assistance, incident was reported to PW.9-Krishnappa-her father and thereafter, a complaint was lodged as per Ex.P.7. Based on Ex.P.7, case was registered, investigated and charge sheet was filed against the accused. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty, but claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs. 1 to 14, Exs.P.1 to P. 12. Exs.D.1 to D.19 were marked while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses on behalf of the defence. 7. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty, but claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs. 1 to 14, Exs.P.1 to P. 12. Exs.D.1 to D.19 were marked while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses on behalf of the defence. 7. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses while answering 313 statement. The accused did not lead any evidence. Total denial of the prosecution case is the defence of the accused. 8. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties formulated the following points for consideration :- 1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the marriage of Smt. K. Bhavani with accused- has taken place on 1-2-1999 as per the customs prevailing in their community, at the time of marriage accused-1 received Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry, apart from the cash received gold, silver like ring chain and received Rs. 20,000/- towards cloths and thereafter, the complainant began to reside with all of them at No. 53, Srinilaya, Dubasipalya Grama, R.V. College Post, Mysore Road, Bangalore, and subjected her to extract cruelty with sole intention to extract more dowry from her parents and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC? 2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 1.2.2002 at about 11.30 p.m. at Dubasipalya at House No. 105, accused No. 1 come to the house with heavy drinks, accused Nos. 2 to 8 joined with accused No. 1 and threatened the complainant to kill her unless she get the site khata transferred in the name of accused-1 and voluntarily caused hurt to her by hand and pulling her hair and thereby committed an offence of punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC? 3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the said date, place and time all the accused did act namely threatened CW. 3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the said date, place and time all the accused did act namely threatened CW. 1 to pour kerosene on her and lit fire and assaulted and puller her hair, dashed her head to the wall and assaulted with hands with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances by that act had to be caused the death of CW.1 Smt. Bhavani, they would have been guilty of murder and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC? 4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the said date, place and time all of them committed criminal intimidation by threatening CW.1 with injuries to her person with intent to cause alarm to CW.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC? 5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused-1 being the husband, accused-2 to 8 being the relatives of the complainant accepted Rs. 1,00,000/- in the form of cash as a dowry from the parents of the complainant at the time of marriage and apart from that accused-1 received Rs. 20,000/- towards expenses of the clothes and Rs. 30,000/- towards jewelers like Gold ring, Gold Chain and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act? 6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused-1 being the husband, accused 2 to 8 being the relatives of the complainant, accused-1 forcing the complainant and her parents to pay additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and coerced and forced her to bring dowry and jewelry and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act? 9. After considering the entire evidence, point Nos. 1 to 6 were held in negative and ultimately, the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused, accordingly, they were acquitted of the aforesaid offences. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. Complainant has also filed a separate criminal revision petition aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal of the accused persons. 10. Mr. Nawaz, learned Addl. S.P.P. submits that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in not appreciating the evidence of PWs.5 and 9 in proper perspective. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. Complainant has also filed a separate criminal revision petition aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal of the accused persons. 10. Mr. Nawaz, learned Addl. S.P.P. submits that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in not appreciating the evidence of PWs.5 and 9 in proper perspective. According to him, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by examining PW.5-Doctor, who treated the complainant. PW.6 is the victim, whose evidence has not been challenged by the respondents. According to him, if the trial Court had considered the evidence of PWs.7, 8 and 9 namely, sister and parents of the complainant, the trial Court would not have acquitted the accused persons. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to reconsider the entire evidence on merits and reverse the findings of the Sessions Court. 11. Mr. H. Neelakanta Rao, learned counsel for the complainant adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Addl. S.P.P. 12. Sri. Kemparaju, learned counsel for the respondents/accused submits that none of the grounds urged by the appellant are tenanble, because the learned Sessions Judge after considering in depth the entire evidence let in by the prosecution has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. According to him, a false case has been launched through the complainant at the instance of PW.9, because there is a civil dispute between the accused family and that of grandmother of PW.7. So, in order to grab the properties of the accused persons, PWs.6 to 9 have planned and filed a false case against them. He also submits that after acquittal, PW.6 and respondent No. 1 are residing together as husband and wife and further he submits that civil disputes in respect of the properties are pending in different Courts. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent about complainant and the first respondent living together as husband and wife after acquittal. 14. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent about complainant and the first respondent living together as husband and wife after acquittal. 14. Having heard the counsel for the parties, what is to be considered in this appeal and Criminal Revision Petition is: "Whether the appreciation of evidence by the Sessions Court is just and proper or perverse and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal calls for interference?" 15. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the relationship between the complainant PW-6 and R-1 is not in dispute. It is also the case of R-1 and the counsel appearing for the petitioner in criminal revision petition that the complainant and R-1 are living together as husband and wife by sorting out their differences. The dispute is whether the accused persons demanded dowry prior to the marriage and after the marriage and whether dowry was paid by PW-9 Krishnappa, father of the complainant or PW-6 to anyone of the accused persons and whether the complainant has been subjected to cruelty and harassment in order to get more dowry and a site and whether the complainant was assaulted by the accused at about 11 p.m. on 1.1.2004 in the house of the accused at Dubasipalya and an attempt was made to pour kerosene and set her ablaze. 16. It is not in dispute ;that except PW-6 complainant, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. PW-7 is the step sister who is born to the first wife of PW-9 and PW-6 has informed PW-7 about the incident said to have taken place on the night of 1.1.2004 on the morning of 2.1.2004. PW-8 is the mother of the complainant. PW-9 Krishnappa is the father of the complainant. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused has mainly relied upon the evidence of these four witnesses. PW-1 is one Lakshmavva who was a co-tenant alongwith A-1 in the house of Radhakrishna who has been examined as PW-3. PW-1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-2 is one Subramanyasastry who is an archak who has performed marriage ceremonies. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. However, the fact remains that the marriage between the complainant and A-1 is not in dispute. PW-1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-2 is one Subramanyasastry who is an archak who has performed marriage ceremonies. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. However, the fact remains that the marriage between the complainant and A-1 is not in dispute. PW-2 has been examined by the prosecution to show that there was demand for dowry and the same was paid in his presence. PW-3Radhakrishna in whose house complainant and A-1 were residing together as tenants, has also not supported the case of the prosecution in regard to the alleged harassment meted out to the complainant by A.1. However, he has admitted that A-1 was a tenant under him from 2002 till 2004 in which year A-1 vacated the premises. PW-5 is Dr. Shivakumar who has treated the complainant at about 3-50 p.m. on 2.1.2004 and who has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P-6. Two injuries are found on PW-6 and they are simple in nature. PW-5 has not mentioned the name of PW-6 and the treatment given to her in the MLC register maintained by him. 17. We have perused the evidence of PW-6 to 9. It has come in the evidence of these witnesses that the accused was working as a driver in BMTC.. PW-6 and A-1 are related to each other because the first wife of PW-9 was the daughter of A-1's uncle. After the death of first wife PW-9 married PW-8 Tholasamma and PW-7 Vishalakshamma is the daughter of PW-9 born to PW-8.Though marriage between the complainant and A-1 was celebrated on 1.2.1999, as on the date of the incident there were no issues out of the marriage. According to the complainant, prior to the marriage there was a demand for Rs. 1 lac, 100 gms. Of gold jewels, Rs. 25,000/- towards clothes for A-1 and a neck chain and gold ring for him and that it was settled for Rs. 1 lac cash, 80 gms. Of gold and Rs. 25,000/- cash separately to A-1. There is nothing to show that such a demand was there and such payment was made, except certain gold jewels, which were given to PW-6. It has also come in the evidence that PW-9 was working as a carpenter in a factory, which was closed about 20 years prior to the date of marriage and he was jobless. There is nothing to show that such a demand was there and such payment was made, except certain gold jewels, which were given to PW-6. It has also come in the evidence that PW-9 was working as a carpenter in a factory, which was closed about 20 years prior to the date of marriage and he was jobless. It has also come in the evidence that at the time of retirement he was drawing a sum of Rs. 700/- per month as salary. It has also come in the evidence that the marriage of PW-7 Vishalakshamma was also celebrated in a temple and so also that of PW-6. It is the specific case of the accused that PW-9 was incapable of celebrating the marriage inany choultry on account of his financial capacity. It is also the case of the complainant that accused persons were demanding her to get two sites from her grandmother Pillamma which has been denied by the respondents. It has come in the evidence that Pillamma is not the grand-mother of PW-6, on the other hand Pillamma is the grand-mother of PW-7. In addition to that, prosecution has not placed any material to show that grand-mother of PW-7 Pillamma had any immovable property. It is contended by the respondents even if Pillamma had any immovable property, PW-6 could not get sites to A-1 because PW-6 is not the grand-daughter of Pillamma. Learned Sessions Judge has considered the financial stability of PW-9 and has also considered the right of PW-6 to demand for a site from Pillamma as Pillamma is not the grand-mother of PW-6. 18. It is also the specific case of the complainant that at about 11 a.m. on 1.1.2004 A-1 after consuming alcohol in the presence of the remaining accused started assaulting her and demanded her to bring a site from her grand-mother and the remaining accused doused kerosene on her and elder brother Sreenivasa A-2 instigated A-1 to set fire on her and that she cried for help and thereafter all the accused locking the house left the place. It is also her case that she changed the dress which were wet on account of pouring of kerosene and next day morning she escaped from the house and went to PW-7's house and after informing PW-9 lodged the complaint before the police. It is also her case that she changed the dress which were wet on account of pouring of kerosene and next day morning she escaped from the house and went to PW-7's house and after informing PW-9 lodged the complaint before the police. It has also come in the evidence that PW-6 & 7 they went to an advocate's office and got typed Ex.P-7 and presented the same before the police at about 4 p.m. on 2.4.2005. It has also come in the evidence of PW-9 who is working in the office of an advocate as a clerk by whom Ex.P-7 was got typed. 19. We have seen the evidence of PW-5 Dr. Shivakumar. According to him, he has treated PW-6 at 3-50 p.m. on 2.1.2004 and she was accompanied by A.S.I. of Kengeri police station and complaint is lodged by PW-6 much later to the treatment taken by her fromPW-5. Normally if a complaint is lodged before the police, first they would receive the written complaint of PW-6 and then she would be sent for medical treatment. The delay in lodging the complaint has not been explained by the prosecution, because the incident is said to have taken place at 11 p.m. on 1.1.2004 and she has escaped from the clutches of the accused persons at about 6 a.m. in the morning of 2.1.2004 and it has also come in the evidence that police station is very near to her house. This entertains a doubt of not informing the police immediately. On the contrary, they went to Bangalore to an advocate's office where her father is working as a clerk and got typed Ex.P-7 and lodged the same at 4 p.m. in the evening. 20. The investigating officer who has been examined as PW-14 has also admitted in his cross-examination that no incriminating evidence was found in the premises where the alleged incident has taken place at about 11 p.m. on 1.1.2004. For the reasons best known to the investigating officer, the clothes worn by PW-6which were wet on account of pouring of kerosene has not been seized and the match-box given to A-1 to set her fire has not been seized, in addition to that, investigating officer admits that there were no signs of such incident. 21. For the reasons best known to the investigating officer, the clothes worn by PW-6which were wet on account of pouring of kerosene has not been seized and the match-box given to A-1 to set her fire has not been seized, in addition to that, investigating officer admits that there were no signs of such incident. 21. It is the specific case of the complainant that all the accused persons were residing together in the house of PW-2 Radhakrishna. But it has also come in the evidence that all the accused persons were residing separately and it is the case of the complainant that A-1 alone was residing in the house of PW-2 Radhakrishna and the remaining persons were residing separately in a different house. Ex.P-12 is the sketch of the house. On perusal of the sketch of the house, it is clear that house is situated in a vatara and it is a very small tenement consisting of a hall bifurcated into kitchen by a dwarf wall and the entire width of the house less than 10' x 10'. In such a place it will not be possible for all the respondents viz., A-1 to 8 to reside in such a small tenement. PW-3 has categorically admitted that it is only the complainant and A-1, who were residing and remaining persons were residing separately. All the brothers and sisters of A-1 who have been arrayed as accused are married and are having children. If it is so, case of the complainant that all the accused persons were living with her cannot be believed under any stretch of imagination. 22. As rightly pointed out by the learned defence counsel that when PW-9 had retired from service 20 years prior to the marriage and when no material is placed before the Court about his financial capacity and when PW-9 has celebrated the marriage of his daughters in a temple, it would be difficult to accept that there was a demand for dowry and dowry has been paid by him and no positive evidence is let in to show that there was a demand for dowry and payment of dowry. As discussed earlier PWs-6 & 9 are not possessing any sites and when natural grand-mother of PW-6 do not possess any sites of her own, it is too much for the prosecution to contend that the accused person had demanded for a site from the grand-mother of PW-7 who is no way concerned with PW-6. Even to show that grand-mother of PW-7 had a site, no material is placed before the Court. In such circumstances, if the Sessions Court by appreciating the evidence let in by the prosecution has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused, this Court cannot lightly interfere with the same and we further hold that the appreciation of evidence is just and proper. 23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Criminal Revision Petition is also dismissed.